Where Islam spreads, freedom dies

The Swedish Committee against Anti-Semitism, SKMA, has launched an attack against me for having had the audacity to reveal that Muslims are behind the anti-Semitism that is afoot in Malmö. It reminds me of the Verband nationaldeutscher Juden [The Association of German-national Jews] who supported Hitler in the 1930s and claimed that Jews were treated fairly in Nazi Germany.

The SKMA reminds us of an interesting but dangerous phenomenon: Intellectual Jews who shy away from the facts concerning Islam and choose to direct their anger at Western Christians and secularists. Factual information makes no impression on them. Nothing will shake their conviction that anti-Semitism and criticism of Islam are branches on the same tree.

Of course this is fairly routine stuff. It would hardly be worth commenting on except for the parallel blindness on each side.

Jews refuse to recognise an adversary. But so, too, does Dispatch International. Everything Carlqvist says of the SKMA in relation to Muslims is true but could equally well be said of Dispatch International in relation to Jews. The Jews continue to seek the favour of the Muslims, cherishing some fantasy of convivencia, even when the Muslims act in ways that are demonstrably hostile to their interests. But so, too, does Dispatch International continue to seek the favour of the Jews, even when the Jews act in ways that are demonstrably hostile to the interests of indigenous Europeans.

When will there be any recognition from Dispatch International or other prominent parts of the Counterjihad movement that Jewish intellectual and political activism in favour of immigration, special protection for minorities, the criminalisation of free speech and the de-Europeanisation of Europe under the rubric of "diversity" has played a significant part in the catastrophe that is now engulfing the continent?

The Jewish organisations cannot admit the Muslim menace because they have a simple moral rule that says "Majorities mobilising against ethnic minorities=Nazism=Bad." Similarly, Dispatch International cannot concede the destructive effect of Jewish activism because it has a simple rule that says "Criticising Jewish conduct=antisemitism=Nazism=Bad". In each case, actual demonstrable facts are disregarded in favour of some moral melodrama that involves fighting off imaginary hordes of demonically evil, irrational people called Nazis. Both groups are mesmerised by these anathema lines that they have drawn, imagining that some terrible moral abyss lies behind them. Both are haunted by the ghost of Hitler and their paralysing obsession with him prevents them from recognising and vigorously responding to very real threats.

When Jews defend Islamic anti-Semitism and turn on those who defend them, one cannot help but feeling dismayed.

Dispatch International

When Europeans defend anti-Europeanism and turn on those European patriots who defend them, one cannot help feeling dismayed.

My version

Of course I don't mean to pick on Dispatch International here. It's just a typical example of the part of the anti-Islam resistance movement that aspires towards mainstream respectability by accepting most of the canons of establishment thinking. It doesn't disagree with the concept of the "Anathema Line", only quibbles about where it should be drawn.

As already mentioned elsewhere, at least 50% of the cj crowd are Jewish and that must be where their loyalties lie, particularly because of the similarities in Islamic and Judaic theologies. For example, 'islamophobia' is used to silence facts about Islam being known amongst the wider public because use of 'phobia' is meant to imply emotional, not mental, reaction and therefore these 'phobics' shouldn't be listened to. We can all see through that linguistic ruse. But what to make of the use of 'Judeophobia', and would anti-islamic groups be prepared to question the veracity, and intentions, of that term as well? In the Telegraph on 31 August, there was a front page article touting a book by a Jewish author, Simon Schama, about the 'horrors' inflicted on Jews in 1096 (no comments allowed). He talks of Christians and their 'Judeophobia' on the basis of a series of Jewish reports, writings (centuries later in some cases) and uses the modern, quite unacademic approach of accepting these as genuine (although admitting that "there are no independent sources to verify them. Equally, however, there is nothing to say that in their core, or even in their details, they are not true" and "whether the unimaginably gruesome details of these stories are true or not, there is no prima facie reason to disbelieve them") So on this basis, Schama goes on to describe in lurid detail how Jewish mothers were supposedly forced to kill their own children to prevent their forced conversion to Christianity. This is all laid to the blame of Christians, yet no mention is made of the mandate from the Torah through the Talmud, that if any family member or friend seeks to apostasise or encourage others in the community, then he must be killed by said family and the 'community' should take note and fear such apostasy. One could conclude that so many of these gory tales might actually mask such inter-family/community killings, rather than being examples of resisting supposedly forced conversion to Christianity. Stating this fact about judaic theology could be regarded as 'judeophobic',just as exposing the koranic and islamic law basis of 'honour killings' might call into question islamic teachings. Freedom of speech, open debate, and examining all ideologies is essential, but we are hugely hampered by media, and by our own unwillingness to confront discomfiting facts about all groups and beliefs. And, in the meantime, the Christian West is attacked on all fronts.

The number one weapon that Jews use to attack critics is the holocaust. We are reminded of it every day by the media. The only way to defeat it is to admit that it is a problem. Watch these documentaries and spread the word! http://codoh.com/library/categories/1167